marek_m

Would like to hear some comments about push/pull development of slide

films. Is anyone using it intentionally and not just for compensating

mistakes or bad light?

As I understand push development increases contrast and grain while

pull development reduces contrast and takes care for muted colors. Is

that correct as a rule of thumb?

If anyone knows about a website showing the results of normal, push

and pull development side by side, please let me know.

Regards

Marek

Hi Carl,

the converter should work like an AI/AIS lens. I am not familiar with the F 100 but if the camera takes AI lenses the converter should work fine.

Optically it is one of the better 3-party converters with a 7 lens design. However don't expect too much. It will not at all match the performance of a dedicated macro lens.

The sweet spot with a 50/1.8 should be around f/5.6 and f/8.

Joe,

rotating does not help. It looks like the older lenses are different.

With your help I just bought a MF Nikkor 300/4.5 IF-ED. The lens is

in perfect condition with just one fault. The build in lens hood sits

that loose that it will not stay in place without support.

Is there an elegant way of solving this or should I go for duct tape?

Todays Pro converters from Kenko are highly reputed. There are

predecessors in a black finish also using a 7-element lens design

selling for almost nothing.

Is the optical performance on par with the current offerings?

I know there are differences regarding AF and metering. I don't care

about that as I will use the TC with MF Nikkors only.

Just picked up the Nikkor 300/4.5 IF-ED. Thanks again for your help.

Jay, I also prefer LF or MF whenever possible. However finding a lens equivalent to 300mm in 35mm (600mm in 6x7, 1000mm in 4x5) needs a lot of patience and deep pockets...

Thanks a lot for protecting me from making a mistake. My local shop has only the old Sigma and a Nikon 300/4.5 IF-ED available at the moment. Initially I have thought that for my specific task (only landscapes, tripod) any decent lens should be able to deliver adequate quality.

Anyhow will check the newer Tokina and Sigma offerings before picking up the Nikon 300mm for about 400$. As I don't expect to use this focal lengths very often 400$ is a lot of money for me...

Plan to buy an old MF Sigma 400/5.6 non Apo to be used exclusively

for landscapes and only on a tripod. Always stepping down the lens

would be no problem.

What quality can I expect? Would I see a difference to expensive

Nikon or Canon glass at f/11?

Could buy an 'Okubo' wooden field camera which is supposed to be

identical with an 'Anba Ikeda'.

Is this true or is it a copy with an even poorer build quality?

Thanks in advance

Hello,

I have been a satisfied user of Velvia 50 especially for landscapes

on overcast days or in the shadow.

Recently I started w/ serious scanning of my own slides and realized

that scanning Velvia 50 is a difficult challenge.

Would like to move to a more modern emulsion which scans better but

keeps as much of the Velvia 50 characteristic. Especially the greens

need to be good.

Think about Velvia 100F. If it is just a bit cooler than Velvia 50 I

would have no problem correcting this with a filter. But I am a bit

concerned because several comments on this site say that Velvia 100F

is not able to show juicy greens.

What is your experience?

Thank you.

Agree that E100G is a great film, but I think it is very similar to Astia 100F. I prefer Astia only because usually you get it a bit cheaper.

My second film especially for overcast days was Velvia 50. For the right subjects I enjoyed the Disney colors but I never liked the small exposure latitude. By learning more about digital I also realized that scanning Velvia 50 can be difficult.

Could E100VS be the film I look for?

Look for a film with increased color saturation as an addition (not

replacement!) of my standard film Astia 100F.

Has anyone directly compared Velvia 50, Velvia 100F and Kodak E100VS?

Which one do you prefer and why?

Hello,

plan to come to NYC soon and will take the opportunity to visit some

galleries for showing my work.

I work in color, my c-prints usually have a size of 24x35 (from

6x9cm) or 40x50 (from 4x5). Looking at 35mm slide duplicates or 8x10

prints makes it hard to imagine the impact of the original prints.

Maybe I am too critical but to me these are only mediocre copies of

the original.

How do you seasoned colleagues get around this problem? Do you lug

your original prints around or are galleries used to look at smaller

prints and are able to imagine how the originals would look like?

Thank you very much

Marek